Understanding Guarantee: 30 years for the basic construction, remaining 5 years

How should this combination actually be evaluated? For me, basic construction means basically everything massive that has something to do with static, so basically the internal structure of the walls, roof truss, tiles, and so on, in other words the interior shell of the house. For the rest like facade, built-in components, electrics, etc., then at most 5 years.

But doesn’t that lead to an interface that doesn’t fit? For example, if after 8 years the facade of a timber frame house has rotted through and as a result the wooden construction underneath has become moldy, do the 30 years still apply or is one still out of luck?

It’s just about understanding, but I guess a clever house manufacturer will always find a loophole due to the overlap of 5 years and 30 years as soon as the 5 years are over?

What are you getting at? Houses have been around for care for quite a while. If your built house suddenly collapses after 29.5 years, then you first have to check your documents to see which trade was responsible, whether they still exist at all, and then have an expert report made proving they are to blame. But their report will say that you are at fault.

Your facade rots after the first rain due to improper execution because water gets in somewhere and stands.

But doesn't that lead to an interface that doesn't fit? For example, if after 8 years the facade of a timber frame house has rotted through and therefore the wooden structure underneath has become moldy, do the 30 years still apply or are you still out of luck?

Of course, there are always ambiguities and the possibility of different defects exceeds what can be clearly regulated. In hardly any country are consumers better protected than with us and yet we simply keep worrying. Just opt out of that and enjoy life in your house and if something occurs, you can then take care of it. Maybe you’ll be unlucky and have to spend money unexpectedly. That’s no reason to get worked up now. You’re really out of luck if you can’t enjoy your house because of worries about eventualities. The protection is sufficient, even if it has gaps.

I didn’t want to get at anything in particular, I was just surprised. For various house manufacturers, for example, there is a huge fuss made about the base splash guard so that the facade doesn’t rot away, like at least 30 cm wide, at least 15 cm underneath, and only a certain type of gravel or some sort of grids instead of gravel.

What use is it to me if, due to all these requirements (in my opinion), I ruin the appearance on the outside just to have a regulation-compliant splash guard. In winter, however, because of the windy area you live in, the snow still piles up 20 cm high against the facade until it melts away.

Or instead of gravel, these grids have no large mesh size, so eventually snow remains lying on them and piles up before it melts away.

I hardly believe anyone runs around the house with a snow shovel clearing the facade. And after 5 years, the house manufacturer says, despite regulation-compliant but crappy ugly execution, tough luck, the warranty is over.

I still don't understand what you're getting at. Are you afraid of the house or that a manufacturer will build something wrong?

Standards are not meant to eliminate thinking. If a standard is not sufficient due to the situation and nature of the construction, another solution is devised. There are also functional alternatives to the standardized splash protection. A constructor will certainly not jeopardize his warranty calculation at the customer’s request. Solutions can be found through discussion – depending on how much the constructor’s calculation and work processes depend on compliance with standards.